Fluoride & the Brain: The China Studies

Since my latest blog posts have met with objections that I might be cherry-picking poor examples of evidence, I have decided to be a little more thorough and go right to the source. While browsing the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) website I found their page on fluoride and IQ containing the claim that there were “24 published studies” associating high fluoride exposure and low IQ. The link to the list of studies was broken but with the help of the Wayback Machine I found the list. Out of the 25 studies and one letter to the editor listed, I have included 17 here, all from China. Five studies had to be excluded because they did not have an English translation available (though they were part of the meta-analysis written about in my last post), also one study from Iran, one study from Mexico, and one study from India were each excluded for being outside the geographical scoop of this review (though they will be included in a future post).

China does indeed have a fluoride problem, high levels in the groundwater and contamination from the use of coal for cooking and heating both contribute to exceedingly high dosages for the populations in various provinces and villages.

But as you can see here, while the Fluoride Action Network’s focus is on stopping community fluoridation programs in places such as the US, not a single study presented was actually about community fluoridation in developed nations. Rather, the studies presented by FAN are about the threat of endemic fluorosis among those exposed to high levels naturally occurring in the groundwater and from coal pollution in developing nations, issues on which they are not active. This is a disingenuous use of scientific research to advance a fear-based agenda. To demonstrate I’m going to take a look at the cited studies one by one.

#1. Research on the intellectual development of children in high fluoride areas.
Chen Y, Han F, Zhou Z, Zhang H, Jiao X, Zhang S, Huang M, Chang T, Dong Y.

This study compared two villages, one an endemic fluorosis area, Biji, and the other a control area, Jiaobei. Biji had fluoride levels in the water of 4.55 mg/L and IQ scores of 100.24±14.52 while Jiaobei had fluoride levels of 0.89 mg/L.

This is one of many examples of misusing studies done on the health dangers of high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in groundwater, exposure to industrial pollution, and occupational fluoride exposure as “evidence” against the controlled use of dental fluoride and water fluoridation programs.

#2. A preliminary investigation of the IQs of 7-13 year old children from an area with coal burning-related fluoride poisoning.
Guo X, Wang R, Cheng C, Wei W, Tang L, Wang Q, Tang D, Liu G, He G, Li S.

The title of this one says enough, the study concerned children from an area with coal burning-related fluoride poisoning.  Coal related fluorosis is a real problem, but it is not related to community water fluoridation programs.

#3. Research on the effects of fluoride on child intellectual development under different environments.
Hong F, Cao Y, Yang D, Wang H.

A quote from the study explains this study,

The region of China selected for this study is a high fluoride, high iodine area in the lower reaches of the Yellow River on the flood plain near the Bohai Sea. Because the residents of the region consume drinking water that has a higher content of fluoride and iodine than the national standard, the prevalence of dental fluorosis and goiter is high.

This is explicitly not evidence of harm from community water fluoridation programs.

#4. Effects of high fluoride intake on child mental work capacity: and preliminary investigation into mechanisms involved.
Li Y, Li X, Wei S.

Once again this study was carried out on children “from a coal-burning fluorosis endemic area“. Coal burning creates airborne fluoride which can be either directly inhaled and be absorbed into foods. In most studies done on fluoride pollution from coal the levels of fluoride seen in the indoor air were fairly high. Such a study is not really relevant to regulated community water fluoridation programs.

#5. The effects of endemic fluoride poisoning on the intellectual development of children in Baotou.
Li Y, Jing X, Chen D, Lin L, Wang Z.

The title of this study is self explanatory but I’ll give a quote from the study,

The endemic fluoride poisoning in the Baotou region of Inner Mongolia is mostly concentrated on the high plateau north of the Ying Mountain Range, and the alluvial plain of the Yellow River south of Ying Mountain. As part of our endemic disease prevention work, we conducted a study of the effects of fluoride poisoning on intellectual development with the children of this region as our subjects.

This study is also on endemic fluorosis and is not relevant to the issue of community water fluoridation as stated above.

#6. Using the Raven’s standard progressive matrices to determine the effects of the level of fluoride in drinking water on the intellectual ability of school-age children.
Qin L, Huo S, Chen R, Chang Y, Zhao M.

This is another study on endemic fluoride. This study involved children from 22 villages with varying fluoride levels. An interesting finding of this study was that children with the lowest fluoride intake in the study had lower IQs than children who lived in areas with fluoride levels closer to our national standard in the US. The authors even stated, “it was discovered that both high and low fluoride had an effect on child intelligence. Fluoride levels greater than 2.0 mg/L or less than 0.2 mg/L can disrupt intellectual development.

Among 141 children in villages with 2.1–4.0 ppm F in the drinking water, 34 (24.11%) had IQ scores in the top three categories (1–3) of intelligence; among 147 children in the villages with 0.1–0.2 ppm F, the number was 40 (27.21%), and among 159 children in villages with a “normal” 0.5–1.0 ppm F, the number was 92 (57.86%). For the lowest two IQ categories (4 and 5), the percentages were, respectively, 75.89, 72.79, and 42.14%.

Once again, this is not good evidence against community water fluoridation in developed nations.

#7. A study of the intellectual ability of 8-14 year-old children in high fluoride, low iodine areas.
Ren D, Li K, Liu D.

This study compared IQ scores of children in an area of high fluoride and low iodine with children of the same ages from an area with low iodine only. As with previous studies the levels of fluoride in question is from endemic sources and is above the recommendations here in the US. This is not good evidence against community water fluoridation. It is also interesting to note that the authors found harmful effect from low iodine intake. This is something to keep in mind when speaking about the opposition to iodized salt for which there is some overlap in the anti-fluoridation community.

#8. A study of the IQ levels of four- to seven-year-old children in high fluoride areas.
Wang G, Yang D, Jia, Wang H.

This study compared IQ scores of children in a low fluoride area (≤ 1.0 mg/L) to children in a high endemic fluoride area with fluoride levels in the water reaching as high as 8.60 mg/L (not accounting for coal contaminated air or food). IQ scores were higher among the former group and lower among the latter. This study simply does not support the hypothesis that community water fluoridation at 0.70 mg/L is harmful.

#9. The effects of endemic fluoride poisoning caused by coal burning on the physical development and intelligence of children.
Wang S, Zhang H, Fan W, Fang S, Kang P, Chen X, Yu M.

One again we have a study with a self explanatory title, the authors we investigating the effects of endemic fluoride poisoning caused by coal burning. The area studied was even described as a “heavily fluoride poisoned area”. This is not good evidence against community water fluoridation.

#10. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children.
Li XS, Zhi JL, Gao RO.

The authors of this study on endemic fluorosis state,

In the medium and severe fluorosis areas, it was customary for coal to be used as a domestic fuel for cooking, heating and drying grain whereas in the areas without or only slight fluorosis there was no custom of drying grain by the use of coal.

This is not good evidence against community water fluoridation.

#11. The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang.
Lin FF, Aihaiti, Zhao HX, Lin J, Jiang JY, Maimaiti, and Aiken

The authors of this study state,

We studied a total of 769 schoolchildren of 7-14 years in three areas, characterized by intakes of (A) low iodine, high fluoride; (B) low iodine, normal fluoride; and (C) iodine supplemented, normal fluoride. Results for the following parameters for areas A, B, and C, respectively were: (a) average IQ: 71,77,96

Once more we are presented with a study on high levels of endemic fluoride. As with study #7, this study does not provide evidence against community fluoridation programs, but its does highlight the importance of getting enough iodine.

#12. Effect of high-fluoride water on intelligence in children.
Lu Y, Sun ZR, Wu LN, Wang X, Lu W, Liu SS.

The authors of this study on endemic fluorosis state,

The children in the high-fluoride area (drinking water fluoride 3.15 ± 0.61 mg/L [ppm]) (mean ± S.D.) had higher urinary fluoride levels (4.99 ± 2.57 mg/L) than the children in the low-fluoride area (drinking water fluoride 0.37 ± 0.04 mg/L) (urinary fluoride 1.43 ± 0.64 mg/L). The IQ of the 60 children in the high-fluoride area was significantly lower, mean 92.27 ± 20.45, than that of the 58 children in the low-fluoride area, mean 103.05 ± 13.86. More children in the high-fluoride area, 21.6%, were in the retardation (<70) or borderline (70-79) categories of IQ than children in the low fluoride area, 3.4%. An inverse relationship was also present between IQ and the urinary fluoride level.

While these results have meaning to endemic fluoride control, they are not meaningful evidence against community water fluoridation.

#13. Arsenic and fluoride exposure in drinking water: children’s IQ and growth in Shanyin County, Shanxi Province, China.
Wang SX, Wang ZH, Cheng XT, Li J, Sang Z-P, Zhang X-D, Han L-L, Qiao X-Y, Wu Z-M, Wang Z-Q.

This study is looking at the effects of high levels of arsenic (up to 190 ± 183 μg/L ) and high levels of fluoride (up to 8.3 ± 1.9 mg/L) from endemic sources. These levels are extremely high and the presence of so much arsenic is worrying. But once more, this does not support the hypothesis that community water fluoridation at 0.70 mg/L is harmful.

#14. Effect of fluoride in  drinking water on children’s intelligence. (& follow up letter to the editor)
Xiang Q, Liang Y, Chen L, Wang C, Chen B, Chen X, Zhou M.

The authors of this study on endemic fluorosis state,

In the high fluoride village of Wamiao (water fluoride: 2.47±0.79 mg/L; range: 0.57–4.50 mg/L), the mean IQ of 222 children was significantly lower (92.02±13.00; range: 54–126) than in the low-fluoride village of Xinhuai (water fluoride: 0.36±0.15 mg/L; range: 0.18–0.76 mg/L), where the mean IQ of 290 children was higher (100.41±13.21; range: 60–128)…The Benchmark Concentration (BMC) for the concentration-response relationship between IQ <80 and the drinking water fluoride level was 2.32 mg/L, and the lower-bound confidence limit (BMCL) of the BMC was 1.85 mg/L. Taking dental fluorosis and other sources of dietary fluoride into account, the reference value concentration (RfC) for fluoride was calculated to be 0.925 mg/L, which is very close to the current national Chinese standard of <1.0 mg/L.

The author are stating that the Chinese fluoride standard of <1.0 mg/L is safe and this study does not provide meaningful evidence against community water fluoridation.

#15.Effect of high-fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence.
Zhao LB, Liang GH, Zhang DN, Wu XR.

The authors of this study on endemic fluorosis state,

children living in the endemic fluoride village of Sima (water supply F = 4.12 mg/L) located near Xiaoyi City had average IQ (97.69) significantly lower (p < 0.02) than children living to the north in the nonendemic village of Xinghua (F = 0.91 mg/L; average IQ = 105.21).

This study is consistent with the rest that excessively high levels of fluoride are a problem but that levels similar to those used in community fluoridation programs are safe.

#16. Research on the intellectual ability of 6-14 year old students in an area with endemic fluoride poisoning.
Hu Y, Yu Z , Ding R.

Once more we have a self explanatory title. In this study researchers look at two groups of children, one with high fluoride exposure from endemic sources (7.00 ppm) and a low fluoride area (0.8ppm or less). The authors of this study describe the impact of fluoride in this study as “negligible” however.

#17. The effects of high levels of fluoride and iodine on child intellectual ability and the metabolism of fluoride and iodine.
Yang Y, Wang X, Guo X, Hu P.

This study examined the “twin contamination zone” of Lidian Village, where the well water had an “iodine content of 1,100 μg/L and a fluoride content of 2.97 mg/L”. The control area for the study, Dading village, had drinking water with an “iodine content of 128.6 μg/L, and a fluoride content of 0.5 mg/L”. Children in Dading were found to outperform children from Lidian on the Chinese Comparative Scale of Intelligence Test (though the difference was not deemed “significant”). While relevant to the situation in some locations in China, this is not meaningful as evidence against community water fluoridation.

Once again, while the FAN’s focus is on stopping community fluoridation programs in places such as the US, not a single study presented was actually about community fluoridation in developed nations. Rather, the studies presented by FAN are about the threat of endemic fluorosis among those exposed to high levels naturally occurring in the groundwater and from coal pollution in developing nations, issues on which they are not active. This is a disingenuous use of scientific research to advance a fear-based agenda. I urge my readers to join me in supporting real, meaningful efforts to protect communities from the harms of endemic fluorosis. If you enjoyed this post please donate what you can to Frank Water and their efforts to provide sustainable water filtration to some of the worlds poorest communities.

Further Reading:
Fluoride & Heart Disease?
Fluoride & Brain Damage
Fluoride & the Brain: Déjà Vu
Fluoride & the Brain: Strike 3, You’re Out!
Science by Press Release: Fluoride & IQ

About these ads

Tags: , , , ,

23 Responses to “Fluoride & the Brain: The China Studies”

  1. OLD Dog Says:

    Where is your proof that water fluoridation is GOOD for the populace? All you provide is studies that show how bad it is in large amounts or in naturally occurring amounts. That is like saying ‘sure it is bad to smoke if you smoke a lot. But smoking a little is okay’.

    Are you aware that we get arsenic, lead, mercury, and aluminum with our fluoride that comes from China? Are you advocating that we should approve of this or be forced to take a substance that makes people sick? I wrote before that I know three people that are highly allergic to fluoride because they are the 3 million in this country that get sick from it (PHYSICIANS’ DESK REFERENCE, 1994, 48th Edition, p. 2335-6, and National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p250.). 3 million is too much. Are you going to argue with the government and the EPA?

    How can you have a conscience knowing that you advocate something that hurts other people? it is okay to be a Vegan and not hurt animals, but it is okay to hurt your fellow man?I am a Vegan and a humanitarian and I do not understand your angle here. Please show proof that the government and the EPA are wrong.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      Old Dog, I’m not sure you understand the burden of proof. Its the responsibility of the anti-fluoridation community to demonstrate harm and support their claims. Your request to prove a negative is also irrational.
      So start providing some references for your claims and I’ll address them.

      I would suggest reading the two citation you gave in context. I’ve read them and they are not the best support for your case. They are clear that the data is not robust. Fluoride hypersensitivity is not definitive and has not been thoroughly established. This is an important point as there are many thing people think they are “allergic” to something when they aren’t, allergy fads are not uncommon.
      Show me better evidence for your 3 million claim, cause right now it appears you are simply extrapolating from non-robust, preliminary data.

      How can you have a conscience knowing that you advocate something that hurts other people?

      Because it doesn’t at community fluoridation levels.

      proof that the government and the EPA are wrong.

      What are you talkign about?!?! The US government SUPPORTS water fluoridation. The EPA merely regulates the amount of naturally occurring fluoride based on the latest scientific data.

  2. OLD Dog Says:

    Community fluoridation is something that is ADDED to already existing water. The burden of proof that is good for us is on YOUR shoulders. I have asked you politely to please show proof that it is indeed beneficial and I have yet to see a response from you. However, there are many studies in various genres for various diseases that have not even been addressed yet in your posts.Several studies that show correlation to various diseases and fluoride. It is rat poison after all. I was merely citing the known fluoride allergies in the last post. Though these are valid studies by the government and EPA, you want to ignore them. How many studies do you want to ignore? The National Research Council is a legitimate study.Throwing out all studies, even those by the EPA and the government does hold much weight in your claim. The government has already stated that children under 7 should not be exposed to fluoride and that we are over-fluoridated which is why the ppm was lowered. However the government did not take into account that there are many variables which heightens our exposure. There is no way to regulate naturally occurring fluoride in our water and food with chemical fluoride found in many different exposures. We have had some nasty spills also at water plants, as well as personal safety issues. My nephew works at the water plant and says they have to suit up in hazmat in order to administer it. He also said they had a hard time regulating the amount that goes in it. The bags sent from China with a skull and cross bones on the bag, is so dangerous, it took them 6 months to train how to use it properly. Then one of the workers got hurt burned bad and they stopped the fluoridation, had to retrain. He said he would never in a million years drink it. When we were first fluoridated here, the water burned the top of my counter, ate the the top layer off it.You telling me this is okay? So I ask you again to address these issues: Give me the data that says it has helped communities better their teeth AND tell me why it is okay to ingest fluoride with arsenic, mercury, lead and aluminum.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      Again you misunderstand the burden of proof. As the accuser the burden is on your shoulders. Science cant prove something to be absolutely safe, the best it can do is show lack of harm and this has been done. The safety of water fluoridation has passed scientific muster and we have regulatory agencies that use relevant research to set the optimum levels. As with vaccine safety, researchers and regulators have done due diligence to look for harm and concluded them to be generally safe and effective. If opponents still want to claim there are danger then that is a claim that needs support.

      However since you asked nicely here are three systematic reviews of water fluoridation and safety. This one looked at 214 studies and concluded that there “was no clear evidence of other potential adverse effects” beyond aesthetic dental fluorosis in some of the population at levels above 1ppm.
      This one looked at 77 papers and concluded that “fluoridation of drinking water remains the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community-wide exposure to the caries prevention effects of fluoride.”
      This one looked at 59 publications including 3 systematic reviews and 3 guidelines and found that “with the exception of dental fluorosis, no association between adverse effects and water fluoridation has been established. Water fluoridation reduces caries for all social classes, and there is some evidence that it may reduce the oral health gap between social classes.”

      However, there are many studies in various genres for various diseases that have not even been addressed yet in your posts.

      Bring it.

      It is rat poison after all.

      So is warfarin, a potentially life saving medication. The poison is in the dose, take to much of just about anything and it can kill you…even pure water.

      Though these are valid studies by the government and EPA, you want to ignore them.

      I didn’t ignore them. As I said, I’ve read the citation your speak of and they don’t appear to be strong evidence for your claim. The PDR statement is just that, a statement, they don’t source it. Nor does it mention dosages or percentage of the population. It not good support for the “3 million” claim.
      As for the 2nd citation from the NRC, perhaps you should read it, “There are a few case reports of GI upset in subjects exposed to drinking water fluoridated at 1 mg/L. Those effects were observed in only a small number of cases, which suggest hypersensitivity. However, the available data are not robust enough to determine whether that is the case.”

      They are saying that its based on a small number of case reports (not reliable) and that the data isn’t robust enough to say fluoride-hypersensitivity is established.

      It is you ignoring rational government studies and recommendations.

      How many studies do you want to ignore?

      I haven’t ignored any studies, Ive been engaging.

      The government has already stated that children under 7 should not be exposed to fluoride

      It’s been stated that some children may be exposed to excessive fluoride, but primarily from groundwater sources and misuse of dental products. It is recommended that while powdered infant formula can be reconstituted with fluoride containing water, that this might increase incidence of mild fluorosis. http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm
      Can you provide a source for the claim that children under 7 (rather than infants) should avoid community fluoridated water and not just excessive dental products?

      and that we are over-fluoridated which is why the ppm was lowered.

      Our science-based regulatory system is self-correcting. Times change and so do sources of fluoride in our environment and diet. As new evidence emerges, new recommendations are made…Imagine that! I personally support the new recommendation of 0.7 milligrams per liter.

      He also said they had a hard time regulating the amount that goes in it.

      Did he say why? If it a measurement problem?

      the water burned the top of my counter, ate the the top layer off it.You telling me this is okay?

      Personally I’m skeptical of that anecdote, did others in your town experience this? Do you have a local news article about it? Surely something like that would make the paper. While fluoride can affect water PH, the balance is often controlled and I’ve never heard of such an incident.
      Yes the pure form of many chemicals are quite toxic and dangerous, sodium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite for example, but they are still useful chemicals and generally safe when diluted and handled properly. Are you opposed to water chlorination as well?

  3. Whitehead Says:

    SV, congratulations on a series of convincing posts on fluoridation issues. Old Dog posed the question of the good that fluoridation does. The main benefits of water fluoridation seem to me to be twofold. Firstly, dental professional opinion is that there is no doubt that there is a benefit to dental health. I am inclined to believe that dentists are well informed regarding dental disease. Secondly, the measure reaches everyone on the public water system, in particular those on the lowest incomes, who tend to bear the highest burden of dental (and other) diseases. In this respect, fluoridation may help to reduce the impact of societal inequalities, which is something I can subscribe to. The real downside is the “freedom of choice” issue. However, I don’t think that’s a strong enough reason to veto a program that can provide a significant benefit to people. Dental disease is not just a question of cavities. For some, particularly younger children, and vulnerable adults, it can result in hospitalisation and serious facial infections.

  4. Michael 'Brett' Baker Says:

    i’m Gratful for this site, but first Red Flag is nothing found in searching site re: Pineal Gland research/studies/conclusions.
    i’ve been following fluoride ‘scam’?? (seems t’me) for a couple yrs now & bottom line: If In Doubt Don’t…& haven’t seen Once a Pro not being w/ Big Fluoride at some level..

    Hope to hear from you; SpepticalVegan

    when first stumbling across this issue i went to bottled water to see if Mild Skin Dis-ease I’ve had for @30yrs might clear up. It Did. & I do Not have allergies/ other ‘sensitive skin’ issues..& I Never Get Sick…So : You Are What You Drink ???

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      Hey Michael,
      What specific claim about fluoride and the pineal gland are you concerned about and what evidence is there to support that claim? I’m happy to address specific claims especially if there is relevant research to look at. For now I’ll post the response the ADA gives regarding fluorides effects on the pineal gland in a FAQ guide that they wrote.

      The pineal gland is an endocrine gland located in the brain which produces melatonin.(251) Endocrine glands secrete their products into the bloodstream and body tissues and help regulate many kinds of bodily functions. The hormone, melatonin, plays a role in sleep, aging and reproduction.
      A single researcher has published one study in a peer reviewed scientfic journal regarding fluoride accumulation in the pineal gland. The purpose of the study was to discover whether fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland of older adults. This limited study, conducted on only 11 cadavers whose age at death was 82 years, indicated that fluoride deposited in the pineal gland was significantly linked to the amount of calcium in the pineal gland. It would not be unexpected to see higher levels of calcium in the pineal gland of older individuals as this would be considered part of a normal aging process. As discussed in Question 22, approximately 99% of the fluoride present in the body is associated with hard or calcified tissues.(192) The study concluded fluoride levels in the pineal gland were not indicators of long term fluoride exposure.(252)

      The same researcher has theorized in unpublished reports posted on the internet that the accumulation of fluoride in children’s pineal gland leads to an earlier onset of puberty. However, the researcher notes that there is no verification that fluoride accumulates in children’s pineal glands. Moreover, a study conducted in Newburgh (fluoridated) and Kingston (non-fluoridated), New York found no statistical significance between the onset of menstruation for girls living in a fluoridated verses non-fluoridated area.(253)

      192. Whitford GM. The physiological and toxicological characteristics of fluoride. J Dent Res 1990;69(Spec Iss):539-49

      251. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Pineal gland. Access December 29, 2004

      252. Luke J. Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Res 2001;35:125-28.

      253. Schlesinger ER, Overton DE, Chase HC, Cantwell KT. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII: pediatric findings after ten years. J Am Dent Assoc 1956;52:296-306.

  5. Declan Waugh Says:

    Dear Skeptical Vegan

    I would start by admitting that I too was skeptical until i started undertaking some in-depth research of the subject area a year ago. It didnt take me long to see a pattern and to start joining the dots. According to the WHO the global population average for neurological illness amongst a population is 6.3%, Ireland is one of the most fluoridated countries in the world with almost 80% of the entire population consuming fluoridated water, a lot of which is very soft water, which increase the bioavailability of fluoride and blood fluoride plasma concentration compared to hard water. We have had an explosion of neurologcial illness int his country where we now have 770,000 people registered as having a neurological illness, that 17.5% of the population, more than twice the global average. We have twice the rate of oestorporosis, one of the highest levels of cardiovascular disease, hypothyroidism, epilepsy, and the most common medical ailment is muscleoskeletal chronic pain. All condition associated with fluoride toxicity. Anyway to get back to neurological issues.

    The most recent european study by Valdez-Jimenez, et al. published in the Journal Neurologia reported that “the prolonged ingestion of fluoride may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system”. The study examined how fluoride induces changes in the brain’s physical structure and biochemistry which affects the neurological and mental development of individuals including cognitive processes, such as learning and memory. The study examined how fluoride can accumulate in the body, and how it has been shown that continuous exposure to fluoride causes damaging effects on body tissues, particularly the nervous system. The study found that fluoride can be toxic by ingesting at one part per million (ppm). It further observed that the effects at this concentration are not immediate and that it can take 20 years or more for its toxic effect to become evident. This study observed that chronic exposure to, and ingestion of, the synthetic fluoride chemicals added to water supplies can cause serious brain and neurological damage.

    In examining the possible risks associated with the effect of fluoride on Alzheimer‘s or dementia the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) stated “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain….fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer‟s disease.”

    Fluoride is known to be capable of inhibiting a number of critical enzymes, including preglycolytic enzymes, phosphatases, and cholinesterase. Glycolytic enzymes play a central role in dementia.631 Cholinesterase plays a significant role in both Alzheimer‘s and cardiovascular disease.

    It has been reported in the Lancet (one of the world’s leading general medical journals and speciality journals in Oncology, Neurology and Infectious Diseases) that “(f)luoridated water may be having its most devastating effects on the most vulnerable, those in utero and infants less than one year old, whose brains are most sensitive to developmental neurotoxins such as fluoride.” One should also note the findings of one of the most recent neurotoxicity studies undertaken by Rocha-Amador et al. (2007) and noted in the 2010 EU Commissions Scientific review of Water Fluoridation , which found that “intake of fluoride in drinking water may contribute to the decreased intelligence in children”.

    I would recommend that you read oneof the latest independent scientif reviews of water fluoridation titled: Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation published in March 2012 available to download from http://www.enviro.ie/risk.html

    1. Valdez-Jiménez L, Soria Fregozo C, Miranda Beltrán ML, Gutiérrez Coronado O, Pérez Vega MI. Neurologia 2011 Jun;26(5):297-300. Epub 2011 Jan 20.Effects of the
    fluoride on the central nervous system,
    2. National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 187.
    3. United States National Library of Medicine, Hazardous substances databank, Biomedical effect and Toxicity of Fluorides.
    4. Iwangoff, P, Armbruster,R, Enz,A, Ruge W. M, Glycolytic enzymes from human autoptic brain cortex: Normal aged and demented cases. Mechanisms of Ageing and Development, Volume 14, Issues 1–2, September–October 1980, Pages 203–209
    5. Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. Lancet 2006;368:2167-78.
    6. Rocha-Amador D, Navarro ME, Carrizales L, Morales R, Calderón J, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, México.
    7. Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water; Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks, Director General for Health & Consumers (2010)

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      Ireland is one of the most fluoridated countries in the world…We have had an explosion of neurologcial illness int his country where we now have 770,000 people registered as having a neurological illness, that 17.5% of the population, more than twice the global average. We have twice the rate of oestorporosis, one of the highest levels of cardiovascular disease, hypothyroidism, epilepsy, and the most common medical ailment is muscleoskeletal chronic pain. All condition associated with fluoride toxicity.

      This is little more than a loose correlation and such correlations can be drawn with all kinds of things. It in no way establishes causation.

      The most recent european study by Valdez-Jimenez, et al.

      Valdez-Jimenez’s research is all about areas of the world with excessively high levels of NATURAL FLUORIDE, many many times the suggested limits. But if you read is actual paper he clearly concludes that the current recommendation of .7 ppm is safe and beneficial. I addressed this study directly in my post “Fluoride & Brain Damage” which reads,

      The paper starts out in the introduction saying, “The aim of this review is to set out information regarding the toxic potential of F and its effects on the nervous system, with special attention to populations exposed to the intake of this mineral at concentrations outside official guidelines.” The author goes on to cite studies of populations in areas with high natural fluoride concentrations and a few animal studies in which high doses were administered. At the end of the study the author concludes, “Fluorine is a chemical element found in high concentrations in the earth’s crust. In many countries where the main source of drinking water is hydrothermal, F concentrations exceed those contemplated by the corresponding official regulations…it is recommended that the geographical location of a given population and the quality of the water they drink should be taken into consideration so as to take preventive measures for its use and, in areas where the fluoride concentration exceeds 0.7 mg/L, to avoid the intake of the drinking water, fluorinated salt, and the use of toothpastes and articles containing F.”

      This study is specifically about populations exposed to the intake of this mineral at concentrations outside official guidelines. This does not show water fluoridation at optimal levels (.7ppm) to be dangerous.

      In examining the possible risks associated with the effect of fluoride on Alzheimer‘s or dementia the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) stated…

      The NRC report was on the EPA’s standard for naturally occurring fluoride which is higher than the HHS standard for community water fluoridation, for a better explanation I direct you to a statment from Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention which reads,

      The latest report from the National Research Council, “Fluoride in Drinking Water”, from March 2006 has been grossly misrepresented. This report did not examine or call into question the safety of community water fluoridation. The report was conducted for the U. S EPA and focused on those with high exposure (four times the exposure from community fluoridated water sources) to fluoride from naturally-occurring fluoride (>4 mg/L) found in some occasional areas of the country. Those drinking water systems that adjust the fluoride for dental health purposes maintain concentrations of 0.7 – 1.2 mg/L. The report states: “Because fluoride is well known for its use in the prevention of dental caries, it is important to make the distinction here that EPA’s drinking-water guidelines are not recommendations about adding fluoride to drinking water to protect the public from dental caries.” There is nothing in this report to support dangers from the lower intake of fluoride that occurs when an appropriate amount is in the water, entire naturally or after being adjusted for intentionally to assure dental health.

      Further, they only say that it is a “possibility” based on a biological mechanism but offer no evidence. This is far from actual evidence. For more on Alzheimer’s disease I direct you to the ADA’s answer,

      QUESTION
      Does drinking optimally fluoridated water cause Alzheimer’s disease?
      Answer.
      Generally accepted science has not demonstrated an association between drinking optimally fluoridated water and Alzheimer’s disease.
      Fact.
      The exact cause of Alzheimer’s disease has yet to be identified. Scientists have identified the major risk factors for Alzheimer’s as age and family history. Scientists believe that genetics may play a role in many Alzheimer’s cases. Other possible risk factors that are being studied are level of education, diet, environment and viruses to learn what role they might play in the development of this disease. (288)

      A study published in 1998 (289) raised concerns about the potential relationship between fluoride and Alzheimer’s disease. However, several flaws in the experimental design preclude any definitive conclusions from being drawn.(290)

      Interestingly, there is evidence that aluminum and fluoride are mutually antagonistic in competing for absorption in the human body. (42,291) While a conclusion cannot be made that consumption of fluoridated water has a preventive effect on Alzheimer’s, there is no generally accepted scientific knowledge to show consumption of optimally fluoridated water is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease.

      42. Newbrun E. Fluorides and dental caries, 3rd ed. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, publisher;1986.

      288.Alzheimer’s Disease Education & Referral Center. Causes: what causes AD? Available at . Accessed May 6, 2005.

      289. Varner JA, Jensen KF, Horvath W, Isaacson RL. Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Brain Res 1998;784:284-98.

      290. American Dental Association. Health Media Watch: Study linking fluoride and Alzheimer’s under scrutiny. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:1216-8.

      291. Kraus AS, Forbes WF. Aluminum, fluoride and the prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease. Can J Public Health 1992;83(2):97-100.

      moving on

      It has been reported in the Lancet…

      The Lancet paper has been critisized by a number of scientists for its approach,

      In asserting the existence of a “silent pandemic” of developmental neurotoxicity, P Grandjean and P J Landrigan (Dec 16, p 2167)1 have apparently forgotten or ignored dose-response principles in their zeal to promote their opinions. In compiling their list of “chemicals known to be neurotoxic in man”, they derive much of their information from occupational exposure studies done when hygiene measures were much less stringent than they are now. Therefore, those results are of limited relevance to assessing general population risks, including those of sensitive populations (pregnant women, infants, children) in whom exposures are much lower.

      It should also be noted that even the Lancet is not immune from bad science, they relatively recently withdrew a horribly flawed study on MMR and autism.

      one of the most recent neurotoxicity studies undertaken by Rocha-Amador et al. (2007)…

      The Rocha-Amador et al. (2007) study is even less applicable to water fluoridation, it was on natural fluoride present at levels above even that seen in many of the Chinese studies. Populations in the study were also exposed to arsenic levels far above US standards. A quote from the study reads,

      The levels of children’s exposure to F in the present study were higher than in the Chinese studies. F in drinking water was 3.5 and 6 times higher than the WHO reference guideline

      When you mine quotes like “intake of fluoride in drinking water may contribute to the decreased intelligence in children”, you are ignoring the context that fluoride in the drinking water they are talkign about is fluoride that is naturally present at levels many times higher than city fluoridated water. when they say “fluoride in drinking water” they DO NOT mean water fluoridation.

      2010 EU Commissions Scientific review of Water Fluoridation

      Why do you bother citing sources that dont support your actual position? Read directly from the EU review,

      Available human studies do not allow concluding firmly that fluoride intake hampers children’s neurodevelopment. A systematic evaluation of the human studies does not suggest a potential thyroid effect at realistic exposures to fluoride. The absence of thyroid effects in rodents after long-term fluoride administration and the much higher sensitivity of rodents to changes in thyroid related endocrinology as compared with humans do not support a role for fluoride induced thyroid perturbations in humans. Limited animal data cannot support the link between fluoride exposure and neurotoxicity, noted in the epidemiological studies, at relevant non-toxic doses. SCHER agrees that there is not enough evidence to conclude that fluoride in drinking water may impair IQ.

      moving on

      I would recommend that you read oneof the latest independent scientif reviews…

      That review is authors only by a sole environmental scientist…I would put much more weight on reviews involving relevant experts some of which are linked here http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/systematic.htm

      • Declan Waugh Says:

        Interesting paradox, you write that the Maine CDC note that the NRC report has been widely misrepresented while Prof Sheldon notes the same about the York Review. Is it not the case that the new recommended max level is now 0.7ppm, a massive drop from the 4ppm previously determined as safe and effective Or how Urbansky has reconsidered his original theory of dissociation of silicofluorides in drinking water and now recommends that authorities stop stating that their is complete dissociation. What your view of medical Law International article who support the view that water fluoridation is in breech of EU law, which is also supported by the british Medical Journal or Professor Kauffman review of water fluoridation in the Joiurnal of American Physicians and Surgeons, interested conclusion noted: “Proponents of fluoridation have censored most media, ignored
        intelligent discussion of fluoridation, slandered most opponents of
        fluoridation, and overturned legal judgments against fluoridation ina manner that demonstrates their political power. Many published
        studies that had conclusions favoring fluoridation were later found
        unsupported by their raw data. There is evidence that fluoridation increases the incidence of cancer, hip fractures, joint problems, and that by causing fluorosis it damages both teeth and bones. Other medical problems may also occur, including neurologic damage..Fluoridation of municipal water should cease. Defluoridation of naturally fluoridated water down to 0.4 ppm of fluoride should be mandated. Individuals should remove fluoride from their tap water if fluoridation cannot be stopped.” Regarding fluoride exposure most people in Ireland would significantly exceed the max recommended daily limit of 4mg/day for men and 3mg/day for women by just drinking tea alone and no other source.

        • skepticalvegan Says:

          Interesting paradox, you write that the Maine CDC note that the NRC report has been widely misrepresented while Prof Sheldon notes the same about the York Review.

          In what way has the York Review been misinterpreted? I think it fairly clear and it certainly doesn’t argue against water fluoridation.
          The report found that,

          *Community water fluoridation reduces tooth decay.

          The best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce caries
          prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by the mean
          change in dmft/DMFT score.

          *Fluoridation is still effective even with the use of many other sources of fluoride.

          In those studies completed after 1974, a beneficial effect of water fluoridation was still evident in spite
          of the assumed exposure to non-water fluoride in the populations studied. The meta-regression
          conducted for Objective 1 confirmed this finding.

          *There is no clear association between fluoridation and bone fractures or cancer.

          Overall, the findings of studies of bone fracture effects showed small variations around the ‘no
          effect’ mark. A meta-regression of bone fracture studies also found no association with water
          fluoridation.

          *There appears to be no major difference between benefits from natural and artificial fluoridation.

          No major differences were apparent in this review, however, the evidence is not adequate to make a conclusion regarding this
          objective.

          *There is an association between the water fluoride concentration and the occurrence of dental fluorosis.

          I’m pretty sure we agree on at least this one.

          *No clear evidence of other potential negative health effects were found.

          Overall, the studies examining other possible negative effects provide insufficient evidence on any
          particular outcome to permit confident conclusions.

          moving on

          Is it not the case that the new recommended max level is now 0.7ppm, a massive drop from the 4ppm previously determined as safe and effective

          No, this is a gross misunderstanding. What you are mistakenly referring to is the recent lowering of the HHS standard for added water fluoridation from a range of 0.7ppm-1.2ppm to just 0.7ppm.

          The 0.7ppm in your statement refers to the current standard set by the HHS for *added water fluoridation* (when adjusted for any naturally present source), 4ppm refers to the EPA’s maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG) which, these are two different standard set by two different agencies, on two different things, for two different purposes. The EPA’s standard is still 4ppm with a secondary non-federally enforceable standard of 2ppm. For more info on how these standards differ read,

          Why is EPA’s drinking water standard (referred to as the MCL or MCLG) different than HHS’ recommended optimal fluoridation level for community drinking water systems?

          EPA’s drinking water standard differs from HHS’ recommended optimal fluoridation level because the two benchmarks have different purposes and are set under different authorities.

          The EPA’s enforceable standard for the highest level of fluoride that is allowed in public water supplies is 4.0 milligrams per liter, and is set to protect against risks from exposure to too much fluoride. The HHS proposed recommended optimal level of 0.7 milligrams per liter is set to promote public health benefits of fluoride for preventing tooth decay while minimizing the chance for dental fluorosis.

          The FDA standard is the maximum amount allowed to occur naturally before the government has to take action to reduce it. The HHS standard is the optimal level for recommend addition of fluoride (adjusted for any naturally present fluoride).

          Or how Urbansky has reconsidered his original theory of dissociation…

          Can you provide some more information on this and a link? Even if true I’m not sure this would be damning evidence against fluoridation, but it may point in the direct of new research.

          What your view of medical Law International article who support the view that water fluoridation is in breech of EU law

          I don’t live in the EU nor am I a close follower of European politics so I don’t really have a comment on that. I will say that fluoridation has been up heard across numerous court in the US and has withstood constitutional challenges.

          supported by the british Medical Journal

          supported how? The review in the BMJ does not make anti-fluoridation conclusions, in fact they say,

          The evidence of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. No clear evidence of other potential negative effects was found.

          They simply present that there is no good evidence of adverse effects beyond some fluorosis increase and leave it at that. As a scientific paper its scope was limited to evidence-based questions of efficacy and safety. The political issue is not addressed.

          Kauffman’s review is not supported by other reviews. Despite his conspiratorial rant at the end, Kauffmans review was one of the better ones in terms that he readily pointed out false claims from the anti-fluoridation side as well. However I’m highly dubious of Kauffman not only because his findings here do not congrue with the scientific consensus but that he also appears to promote a number of discredited and dangerous hypothesis, such as positive reviews for AIDS denialism literature, in his review he even promotes refusal of AIDS testing and treatment!

          Further, I would like to point out that the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is NOT a respected scientific journal, it has been rejected by U.S. National Library of Medicine and web services Pubmed and is widely recognized as a purveyor of pseudoscience. Among the dubious topics promoted in the pages of the journal are, AIDS/HIV denial, breast cancer/abortion link, opposition to vaccination, anthropogenic climate change denial, and that the “gay male lifestyle” shortens life expectancy by 20 years.

          Here area couple article going more in depth on why the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is a poor scientific source.
          The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: Ideology trumps science-based medicine
          The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: Medical “science” as dubious as it gets

          Regarding fluoride exposure most people in Ireland would significantly exceed the max recommended daily limit of 4mg/day for men and 3mg/day for women by just drinking tea alone and no other source.

          Can you provide a reference for that max standard of 4mg/day and 3mg/day for Ireland? Because here in the US the standard is 10mg/day for adults.
          Also, if “most people” “would significantly exceed the max recommended daily limit” by “just drinking tea alone and no other source” then why aren’t you fighting against tea, its obviously a bigger source of danger. If you think people are already exceeding the max recommended daily limit with tea alone (if true), then what good is stopping low level fluoridation gonna do, you should be fighting to put warning labels on tea or ban it. Why aren’t you advising people to be more concerned about tea rather than just water.

  6. Declan Waugh Says:

    Skeptical Vegan

    You say that “The safety of water fluoridation has passed scientific muster and we have regulatory agencies that use relevant research to set the optimum levels” Are you aware of the following facts as noted by the Chair of the NHS YORK Review undertaken for the Chief Medical Officer of the United kingdom. I will print it in full below. As you will see it totally contradicts your observation finding that the policy of water fluoridation was indeed not safe and caused significant dental fluorosis that was not just a cosmetic issue. That is to say it damaged peoples teeth. The York review is regarded as one of the most comprehensive studies every undertaken often misquoted as you will see below. Findings this letter from Professor Sheldon was for me the beginning of my realization t that we have all been lied to and made fools of regarding this policy. The emperor has no clothes. Maybe one day you will see clearly.

    Professor Trevor A. Sheldon
    Head of Department
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STUDIES
    Innovation Centre
    York Science Park
    University Road
    York YO10 5DG
    Tel: (01904) 435142
    Fax: (01904) 435225
    3/1/2001

    In my capacity of chair of the Advisory Group for the systematic review on the effects of water fluoridation recently conducted by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination the University of York and as its founding director, I am concerned that the results of the review have been widely misrepresented. The review was exceptional in this field in that it was conducted by an independent group to the highest international scientific standards and a summary has been published in the British Medical Journal. It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review’s findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, the British Medical Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society.

    I should like to correct some of these errors.

    1. Whilst there is evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit, only of the order of 15%, is far from “massive”.
    2. The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised as “just a cosmetic issue”.
    3. The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research was needed.
    4. There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health.
    5. The review could come to no conclusion as to the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation or whether there are different effects between natural or artificial fluoridation.
    6. Probably because of the rigour with which this review was conducted, these findings are more cautious and less conclusive than in most previous reviews.
    7. The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation.

    (Signed) T.A. Sheldon,
    Professor Trevor Sheldon, MSc, MSc, DSc, FMedSci.

  7. Richard Hudon Says:

    Dear Skeptical Vegan,

    You have obviously misread or misinterpreted the York Review on fluoridation and the U.S. NRC report, Fluoride in Drinking Water if you have read them at all.

    You have obviously not read the book “The case Against Fluoride,” “The Fluoride Deception,” Fluoride, Autopsy of a Scientific Error,” or “Fluoride: The Aging Factor” but if you have, you have not done so with an open mind

    You have obviously not visited the Second Look website, http://slweb.org/bibliography.html but if you have, you have not done so with an open mind.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      You have obviously misread or misinterpreted the York Review on fluoridation

      I have read the York Review, I agree with the CDC and other relevant agencies and scientific bodies that the York Review does not provide any damning evidence against fluoridation.

      The report found that,
      *Community water fluoridation reduces tooth decay.

      The best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce caries
      prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by the mean
      change in dmft/DMFT score.

      *Fluoridation is still effective even with the use of many other sources of fluoride.

      In those studies completed after 1974, a beneficial effect of water fluoridation was still evident in spite
      of the assumed exposure to non-water fluoride in the populations studied. The meta-regression
      conducted for Objective 1 confirmed this finding.

      *There is no clear association between fluoridation and bone fractures or cancer.

      Overall, the findings of studies of bone fracture effects showed small variations around the ‘no
      effect’ mark. A meta-regression of bone fracture studies also found no association with water
      fluoridation.

      *There appears to be no major difference between benefits from natural and artificial fluoridation.

      No major differences were apparent in this review, however, the evidence is not adequate to make a conclusion regarding this
      objective.

      *There is an association between the water fluoride concentration and the occurrence of dental fluorosis.

      I’m pretty sure we agree on at least this one.

      *No clear evidence of other potential negative health effects were found.

      Overall, the studies examining other possible negative effects provide insufficient evidence on any
      particular outcome to permit confident conclusions.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      You have obviously misread or misinterpreted the…U.S. NRC report, Fluoride in Drinking Water…

      I have also read the NRC report and once again see no damning evidence against fluoridation in it, in fact it does not address fluoridated water it addresses the EPA’s standard for naturally occurring fluoride which is higher than the HHS standard for community water fluoridation, for a better explanation I direct you to a statement from Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention which reads,

      The latest report from the National Research Council, “Fluoride in Drinking Water”, from March 2006 has been grossly misrepresented. This report did not examine or call into question the safety of community water fluoridation. The report was conducted for the U. S EPA and focused on those with high exposure (four times the exposure from community fluoridated water sources) to fluoride from naturally-occurring fluoride (>4 mg/L) found in some occasional areas of the country. Those drinking water systems that adjust the fluoride for dental health purposes maintain concentrations of 0.7 – 1.2 mg/L. The report states: “Because fluoride is well known for its use in the prevention of dental caries, it is important to make the distinction here that EPA’s drinking-water guidelines are not recommendations about adding fluoride to drinking water to protect the public from dental caries.” There is nothing in this report to support dangers from the lower intake of fluoride that occurs when an appropriate amount is in the water, entire naturally or after being adjusted for intentionally to assure dental health.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      I’m sorry you think I don’t have an open mind just because I have not come to the same conclusions as you. I would like to point out that I was raised in an anti-fluoride household, it was only upon researching it for myself that I can to a different conclusion.
      I would also like to point out that other than the scientific reviews which don’t actually support your position, you have only cited pop sources. Hardly credible information sources. If their is a specific reference from one of these book you would like to discuss then I’m open to it, but don’t dismiss people just because they haven’t read the exact same pop books as you (BTW I have read Fluoride Deception).

  8. Drinking water makes you stupid « The Water Inspector Says:

    [...] http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/06/05/fluoride-the-brain-the-china-studies/ Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. Tagged Drinking water, [...]

  9. Well, well, well. What do we have here? « The Water Inspector Says:

    [...] that can affect groundwater, such as arsenic, chromium and fluoride. In fact, many of the fluoride studies performed in China involves the consumption of well water that has a naturally high level of [...]

  10. cHronilogy Says:

    Well holocaust historians and the ridicules trail on german scientists is purely a theater, all of the documentation on the cynical mind-control research done in both soviet and the nazi era is locked up tight by the international group of occult societies that CREATED these social experiments of control. Any accepted mainstream historian has either just done their job with the available information or is hired to speak to the public to promote a point of view that will create a wanted perspective on the worlds history. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztoh49f5X9o

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      of course, lack of evidence for the conspiracy (or counter evidence) is simply evidence of the conspiracy…

      perhaps I missed it but where in the video (give me a time stamp) does it give any evidence that the Nazi’s used fluoridation?

  11. Grizwald Grim Says:

    I love this bit: “*There appears to be no major difference between benefits from natural and artificial fluoridation.” – yet your entire rejection of the China studies is based on the harms being different in natural and artificial fluoridation.

    Here’s some more fun: http://goo.gl/E4lb6n

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      Not, quite. The study looks at flouride from multiple sources including coal burning and most fail to account for other contaminants in the environment. There are also issues with the reliability of the IQ tests used (other bloggers have written more on that).

  12. Fluoride & Neurotoxicity in The Lancet | Skeptical Vegan Says:

    […] Chinese studies have been addressed to death already (you can see my break down of the studies here), but anti-fluoridationists just don’t seem to care. They will continue to parrot anything […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 244 other followers

%d bloggers like this: